WHO WE ARE: The boom is back

A column about Australia by David Dale, published in The Sun-Herald, 10/6/2007
Question: How could the Bureau of Statistics have got it so wrong? Answer: Don't be too hard on the bureau. Nobody could have anticipated that Australia would suddenly turn into a nation of sex maniacs.

A couple of months back, this column asked readers to prepare themselves for a party early in 2008, to celebrate a landmark in Australian history: the population reaching 21 million. I based this invitation on the bureau's population clock, which at the time was ticking over at the rate of one new person every two minutes and 11 seconds.

The speed of the clock was determined by the bureau's estimate that on average, a new baby joined us every one minute and 59 seconds, while we got a new immigrant every four minutes and 47 seconds and somebody died every three minutes and 54 seconds.

But last week the bureau sent me a message saying they had decided to speed the clock up. The statisticians had just put together all the data on births and arrivals for last year, and got a big shock. In 2006, there were 265,900 births in this country -- the second highest figure in our history. It was only surpassed by the 276,400 births registered in 1971.

Since the mid 70s, our birth rate has been on a toboggan. But two years ago, possibly encouraged by Peter Costello's $2,500 "baby bonus", or because economic good times made them feel they could feed a third or fourth mouth, Australians started going at it like bunnies. And so a new baby boom begins.

There was also a mini-boom in immigration last year - a net gain of 147,700 people, up from 110,000 in 2005.

So if you go to the population clock today (click here) you'll see our population sitting at 20,984,000. It now assumes an overall population growth of one person every 1 minute and 45 seconds.

At that rate, we will click over to 21 million on Friday June 29, 2007. A millionstone to celebrate.

Australia reached its first million in 1858, when the fertility rate was about six babies per woman. In 1918, when we crossed 5 million, the fertility rate was three babies per woman. It dropped to 2.5 during the Depression in the 1930s, but in 1959, when the population hit 10 million, it was back up to 3.5.

The arrival of The Pill in the 1960s and legalised abortion in the 1970s gave women more choice in the matter, so the fertility rate had dropped below two babies per woman by 1981, when we reached 15 million. When we hit 20 million in 2003, it was 1.7. Now it's back up to 1.8.

And that's why I can give you only two weeks and five days notice to lay in stocks of champagne.

Click here to learn what the Census figures will reveal about Australians. To discuss why TV is a dying medium, click here. And if you'd care to explain why we've started breeding again, go below ...

LATEST COMMENTS

I really dont see why this should be celebrated - it should be a warning to us that in a country that can hardly support the people already living here things are going to get worse. Population increase leads to water shortages, increased pollution, more traffic and the list could go on and on. From http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2006/1807002.htm
The Global Footprint Network estimates that in 2001, and I quote, 'humanity's Ecological Footprint ... exceed the Earth's biological capacity by about 20%', and the latest WWF Living Planet Report 2006 now puts the figure at 25%.
Action needs to be taken now to start reducing our numbers while we still can ethically, rather than leaving it to nature to cull us which will be the inevitable conclusion should we fail to do anything.

Posted by: toomany on June 10, 2007 1:05 AM

Population bubble 1971 - current age 36. Females - time to make babies before it is too too late. Males time to impregnate (or at least in teh next twenty years). the baby bonus just makes the genetic imperative that much more attractive

Posted by: Not a Breeder on June 10, 2007 1:23 AM

I concur with the first writer... one must ask the question what sort of planet will we be handing over to our children?
We are faced with growing shortages of nearly everything we take for granted currently: Oil, water, natural resources, minerals, and the list goes on.
There has to be some fundamental shift in the way we think. Have a look at http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
It's tailored for the UK, but it will give you soemthing to think about.

Posted by: Jules on June 10, 2007 4:24 AM

Aha! David - your blog has done my research for me. I was born in 1971 and am currently in the family way, as is half of my workplace, several of my friends, and every second woman on the Cook's River Bikepath in Earlwood/Marrickville. I have been telling anyone who will listen over the past six months that there's a baby boom on. Now it all makes sense. If the last boom was in '71, then all the women like me, who haven't been in a position/wanted to breed until now because they have been busy getting an education and mortgaging themselves into the next century, are on their way. Makes perfect sense to me. And let me tell you, it ain't got nothing to do with that hideous Chesire Costello Cat.

Posted by: Joining the club on June 10, 2007 7:24 AM

It's a great thing our population is increasing. As anyone in manufacturing can tell you, we need more people in our domestic market to give us economies of scale, to increase our competitiveness.
We are vastly underpopulated for a country of such immense proportions. For example, USA and Europe, with a similar land mass, both have more than 300 million people.
For all the naysayers, just look at the large sustainable populations in arid areas such as Arizona, Nevada and other desert states in the US.
There is no reason Australia couldn't support at least 100 million people. Of course, I am not suggesting Sydney and Melbourne should become 20 million people mega cities, but we could easily build many new cities all around our coast as well as inland.
Just look at WA - other than Perth, there is no city of more than 1 million anywhere in the state. Similarly, NT is virtually empty.
Of course we need to build infrastructure, and it can't happen overnight, but given time and resources, we can easily have a vastly larger population.

Posted by: weneedmorepeople on June 10, 2007 7:33 AM

I think the statisticians need to get more creative in their analysis of the baby boom we have seen in the past couple of years. From what I see in the Inner West, it appears to be the convergence of 2 separate generations breeding at the same time.

There's the late 30's mob (like myself) who established careers and waited until the last minute, and there's a lot of us! We were going to breed regardless of the baby bonus because we had no more time left. Besides, the baby bonus is nothing compared with taking 12 months off from a well-established and remunerated career.

And then there is a younger generation of new mums in their mid 20s to whom the baby bonus is a good motivator (but not the only motivator). Their thoughts are along the lines of "well, I'm going to breed, I may as well do it now and THEN I can develop my career".

It appears that every second woman between Erskineville and Marricklille is pregnant at the moment.

Posted by: Nella on June 10, 2007 8:20 AM

Why are they breeding,
I thought you watched telly. Better shows, less babies!

Posted by: matt on June 10, 2007 8:24 AM

I think the first writer summed it up well. More people = more pressure on the environment.

And in these troubled times thats the last thng we need.

If this is something to be celebrated then I dont want to hear any more whinging about crowded hospitals, traffic congestion in the citys,global warming, the loss of the humble beach shack ( as more of these are ripped down for high rise apartments),aboriginal health, uranium mining or rock throwing teenagers.

Why should we be encouraging more people to share our already crowded spaces...if I wanted to go live in Nevada then I would move there. And untill we can fix the mess that we have already , no more babies, please.

Posted by: Imforthewhales on June 10, 2007 8:38 AM

My 36 year old sister lives in the inner city is a professional has travelled the world has just given birth to her first child - yep she fits all the demographics

Posted by: proud aunty on June 10, 2007 9:10 AM

yep. I am one of those statistics. biological clock, own mortgage, time to breed (now or never) and
with the increase in immigration lately, the father is from that statistic. the baby bonus does make one feel a bot calmer.

Posted by: HIkergirl on June 10, 2007 9:21 AM

I agree with those who think that the baby boom is a tragedy for Australia and its precious environment. The last thing this poor, overheated, overburdened, over-polluted planet needs is another human.

Posted by: Jodie on June 10, 2007 9:56 AM

The rapid increase of the human population, here and globally, is madness. It is putting so much pressure on our planet's carrying capacity that it will be our downfall. Wars for water, arable land and other resources are going to be inevitable unless we slow down the growth- quickly. We have 2 choices; either do it ourselves with social engineering, or it will happen via war, famine and disease, probably in my lifetime (I'm 34). And 'weneedmorepeople'- you know nothing if you think this country could support 100 million people; 20 million is already killing off our major river systems and arable land.

Posted by: Darren on June 10, 2007 10:33 AM

So lets get a show of hands.. who wants to breed? I know i do!

Posted by: linnet on June 10, 2007 10:44 AM

I agree that more people, more pressure to our existing infrastruture and environment.

Australia cannot support 100 millions as weneedmorepeople says because we are one of the driest continent in the world. Vast areas in our country are so dry that they have no use, so the usable lands are much more limited and cannot be compared with USA or Europe. Already we have water crisis for 21 million people.

Australia does not have competitive advantage in manufacturing industries that require massive population and will never do. Those industries have been occupied by coutries such as China and India and we can never compete with them in number. The advantages we have are in farming, mining, finance sectors and high-tech industries. Those areas do not require massive population but highly educated one.

Australia currently having a big current account deficit and our exports are farming and minning while our imports are manufacturing products. If population expands, we will have less farming and minning products to export because that need support the expanding population first. The demanding for import manufacturing products will increase. The deficit will shoot up and our dollar will drop eventually and that will lead to significantly lower living standard.

That does make sense because someone have pointed out that footprint of each Australian is so big that if that we do not have enough resources to support expanding population or we have to reduce our footprint and hence living standards.

The natural birth rate is still low at 1.8, and still well below the replacement birth rate to maitain our current population. More babies is not an issue here. However, we cannot run immigration rate at the current level, which are too too high. There are simply not enough resources unless Australian wants to reduce the living standards.

Posted by: VL on June 10, 2007 10:55 AM

I agree with most of the opinions posted this morning. I found comment "more TV shows less babies" ammusing.

Regarding the ecoloigcal arguments, it must be noted that we can, and must, breed to ensure the security of our nation, both economic and safety. We can increase our population and ensure the security of our environment. We just need to be more creative, such as hybrid cars and introduce renuable energy and resources.

"culling" our population does not mean that we will "save the planet". That is just fanciful.

Posted by: Johnny G on June 10, 2007 11:25 AM

There are far too many people in the world as it is- Why do people think that more people will improve our quality of life?

It just means more of us will have to share the limited water, food, jobs with heaps more people- I prefered the Australia that was quiet, sparcly populated, reserved and easy to share amongst a small polluation.

Posted by: Dave on June 10, 2007 11:39 AM

There are three reasons why Nevada and Arizona are able to support such a large population in an arid environment. Two of these are natural features that don't exist here.

1. The Rocky Mountains.
2. The Colorado River.
3. Hoover Dam.

That said, we have a rapidly aging population with a statistical bubble of old people that are going to die within a period of 10 or 20 years. These are what have been termed as Baby Boomers. While they may have a time to go yet, they are going to die and they form a large percentage of the population so when they do die, there would be de-population unless numbers are made up by immigration and local births. Governments know this and that is why assistance for parents have been made available to encourage families to have more children.

Even then, birth rates of 1.8 per woman is below replacement. So bleating about de-nuding the environment because we are "breeding like rabbits" is being somewhat melodramatic, to say the least.

Posted by: Mark Harrison on June 10, 2007 12:08 PM

Yeah, let's hope it's a water-baby boom. Australia is a pretty low-lying continent, easily affected by any change in sea level - and we ARE girt by sea. ;)

Posted by: Alice R on June 10, 2007 12:13 PM

I find the increase in birthrate & the marginal shift in the Women's revolution highlighted in " The Surrendered Wife" as overswings that are nature's way of bringing us back to balance. I was going to respond to Hugh mackay's excellent piece in today's Sun-Herald on " Raising daughterts in an age of raunch" but I'll put forward my argument against the over-empowering of women's sexuality, as being endemic to our societies obsessiveness with instant gratification.
What I'm " Hooraying" about is a shift in mating & bonding, between men & women. lets hope this new generation of babies will not experience the dearth of active fathering, that initiated the men's revolution, ala Robert Blye, Steve Biddhulph etc. I'm "Hooraying" for true co-operativeness between men & women, rather than the isolative aspects of feminism & male Chauvinism, its counterpart. I'm "Hooraying" that our good mother earth produces an abundance of supply, for her human content. It's up to all of us to ensure that supply is equally distributed. & while we weren't discussing paris Hilton, I'm in favor of her serving her prison term & I'd include her parents, so that they might learn to function as a normal family, with normal moral rights & values. I believe that parenting is a life-long contract. Lets make sure that this flood of babies on the way, get better support than our earlier deluge, called " Baby-boomers."

Posted by: Adam Cachmore-Brooke on June 10, 2007 12:17 PM

As some people here have picked up: It's another echo generation. Baby boomers got busy in 1970/71, their kids (like me) are getting busy now, and our kids will get busy in 2045, depending on major variables not varying much (environment, science, religion...)

Posted by: yossy on June 10, 2007 12:38 PM

What another cause,,,,,for Global things. I think this planet dont require any more human increase.
Just Hope the whole world population
will wake up soon to learn and take more resposility,,,,for our lovely mother Earth,,,,,,,Simple as that!
Planet had enough of Human destruction,,,how much a human contribute to pollution ? think about it ! Hope the world leader will do something about it, Before Mother Earth.....got confuse
Steve O

Posted by: Steven O on June 10, 2007 1:10 PM

Perhaps if we all just lived a little more "green" then we wouldn't be sucking the planet of its resources, therefore being able to accommodate a higher population.
But those who say we shouldn't have more babies...why not add bumping off all those who are over 70 years old. They've done their dash, they're sucking the planet's resources and if they're gone then our taxes can be better spent elsewhere than on the elderly. Does that seem reasonable?
Not having babies isn't going to save the environment...it is about as ridiculous as killing off the elderly.
We breed because most people have an overwhelming urge to. Why now? Why not.
Mrs M
www.mumsword.net

Posted by: Maria Tedeschi on June 10, 2007 1:40 PM

To the first poster... why not top yourself? From your post, I think you'll make excellent fertilizer and will have done your bit for the environment!

Posted by: David on June 10, 2007 2:16 PM

To Johnny G:
The notion that you need to breed to increase our economic security is flawed. Australia was doing much better on the various measures that rank us against the rest of the world such as the HDI when we had a smaller population. Also there are plenty of small countries that score highly compared to countries that have massive populations.

To Mark Harrison:
Yes we are going to have a problem with an aging population but the solution isnt to bring in even more people to prop it up because when they get old then we are going to have to bring in even more people again to prop them up. You say depopulation as if it is going to be a bad thing? Depopulation means that there are more of the resources to go round for those of us here. Remember its unlimited wants and limited resources in this world.

And finally to maria tedeschi:
Not having babys isnt going to save the environment but it sure is going to help a lot. Not having babies - ir having fewer means that there is much less demand on our very overstretched environment. If you dont believe this maybe you should take a trip to Beijing and see what a city with a lot of people looks like - and even one where they are trying to reduce their numbers and use far fewer resources per person compared to us. No one has been talking about killing off the elderly or anyone else. I suggest you have a look at the link i posted in the first post as you seem to be one of the self deluders who believes that the number of people has nothing to do with the effect on the environment.

Posted by: toomany on June 10, 2007 2:23 PM

far out

The birth rate goes from 1.7 to 1.8 babies per couple and the media goes nuts.

The national birth rate is still in the negative people. Without immigration or euthanasia of retirees all our kids are going to be doing is looking after ncreasing numbers of old people in the future.

Posted by: steve on June 10, 2007 2:31 PM

The reason for the rising birthrate is so simple. I'm astounded no-one seems to have grasped it.

Back in the 2005 budget Costello announced 'From 1 July 2006 those on Parenting Payment will be expected to look for at least part-time work when their youngest child turns six and is ready for school.... Those on Parenting Payment at present will keep it. Those coming on to Parenting Payment after 1 July 2006 will continue to receive it while their youngest child is under six and then move to enhanced Newstart when that youngest child turns six.'

So all those single mums with kids under six have been desperate to pop out aniother bub to stave off the dreaded enforced return to work. Or work for the very first time. Many of these women have little chance of finding any sort of employment that will make them even marginally better off than they are on a parenting payment. The solution is to have another kid.

I live in an area popular with single mums on benefits. There have been a lot of babies in the last year, far more than usual for this group. It would be interesting to see the figures on the number of bubs being born to welfare-dependant single mums in compared to the number being produced by comapratively better-off women who have simply waited until the right moment in their career to have a kid.

The stupid baby bonus has also encouraged these women to have more kids. The bonus means a new TV or repairs for the car or a new fridge. Why not go for it? After all, you get more money each fortnight for another kid as well.

Costello has a lot to answer for. We are producing a whole generation of social misfits. Conceived simply as a means of increasing the family welfare take, brought up by poorly educated single mums in neighbourhoods full of kids just like them, suffering educational and social disadvantage, doomed from birth to be behind from the very beginning, stuck in families where mum's 'boyfriend' of the week is more often than not a loser of the worst sort.

What have we done Mr Costello? Is this really what you see as a good thing for the country?

Posted by: meg on June 10, 2007 2:57 PM

Nella's point on the convergence of two generations breeding is certainly supported by my experience. The average age of first child is increasing, indicating what we know anecdotally, that many women whose mothers were in their twenties when they were bearing children delayed parenthood until their mid-late thirties. This has created a "lull" in birthrates, followed by the recent "boom". NOthing mysterious or politically motivated about it.

Posted by: Angie on June 10, 2007 3:21 PM

I'm a little sceptical that 'welfare dependant single mothers' are pushing up the figures so dramatically,-and the generation of social misfits is a bit of a sweeping generalisation!!! Centrelink ITSELF says that the majority of sole parents go on the pension when a marriage breaks down and usually retrain and go back into the workforce after a couple of years.

what do you suggest, Meg? enforced sterilisation?

I agree - even as a parent - the 'baby bonuses'could be much better used for investment in schools and subsidised childcare - into a public system which supposedly benefits all - maybe in this case it would be better spent subsidising TAFE fees and childcare costs so that sole parents have more skills and the capacity to earn FAR more than $4000 -
the baby bonus seems to me another way of putting public wealth in private hands... but i dont think it really changes the birthrate. its a huge commitment for a few thousand dollars!!!

Posted by: lethe on June 10, 2007 4:02 PM

I'm not sure why the writer thinks 21 million people is something to celebrate? As Bob Carr asked, why do we need to be a big nation to be a successful nation? When are we going to have a national population debate and population growth plan? The great thing about Australia growing up in the 70's and 80's was the space, not living on top of each other, infrastructure that suppported our population. We do not want to be a country such as many Asian countries for example, with our people living in high density, overcrowded conditions. With over 90% of our country being uninhabitable and the majority of our growing population living on the eastern seaboard in major cities, we are fast losing this, if not already lost it. I for one won't be breaking out the champagne.

Posted by: Natasha on June 10, 2007 4:05 PM

I have said for ages that people will start having babies again...it is just the shift to having them later in life, ie 28-40 rather than 18-26... there has been a gap while this change has happened... that is now over and we are all going at it (without contraception)

Posted by: Peanut's due on June 29th on June 10, 2007 4:14 PM

Dear Toomany,

My point was that rapid depopulation is not a good thing, from an economic point of view. Rapid depopulation can result in deflation. Sounds like it should be a good idea but deflation is a very bad thing and can result in extended economic problems, which in turn results in extended social problems. Look at Japan after the bubble burst in the 90's and how long it has taken for Japan to recover.

We want to manage a gradual transition from one population level to another. But as I also said, I think we are getting a touch melodramatic about this.

Posted by: Mark Harrison on June 10, 2007 5:41 PM

Increasing birth rates are not the cause of our environmental mess. Responisbility for that lies with stupid adults. We have a water shortage - so why is cotton grown in Western NSW? Why are grapes grown in Murrumbateman (located just outside the ACT with current level 5 water restrictions)? Why aren't hybrid cars being designed larger to accomodate families (the Lexus large hybrid is outside the budget of most families)? Why has our Government ignored climate change for the last 10 years? Why do people drive 4WDs just because they want to (I recognise some people need to)?
Australians should breed when they can/want to. At this rate we will need the next generation to fix the problems created by stupid people today.

Posted by: Michelle on June 10, 2007 5:58 PM

Mercenary Mothers I call them, as I trip over the prams lined up outside the jewellry shops.
Imagine, if you came from a background where very little was left of the pension after beer and smokes, $4100 would seem like winning the lottery. Believe me, that is a huge sum of money all at once for some folk.
It is very naive to think that amount of money will not influence some people.
It is a stupid allowance, promoting irresponsibility, and could be distributed in other ways.
And how come the number of babies being born last year are only now being counted? With a 9 month waiting list, we could know this year's number already.

Posted by: Di on June 10, 2007 6:06 PM

In response to weneedmorepeople, the issue with have a vastly larger population is the carbon footprint we exert on the planet. Is it acceptable that developed societies consume energy at an order of magnitude more per capita than developing countries and is responsible for most of the climate change problems we face today? Population increases at an exponential rate. Encouraging further population growth is patently irresponsible given we have already exceeded what the Earth can handle.

Posted by: Mike on June 10, 2007 6:26 PM

David, just wondering why my post, that I took the time to write and tried to express thoughtfully, in a considered manner, wasn't posted here. I sent it at about 2 - 3pm Sunday. As there are now posts from 4 - 5pm here, obviously there was something offensive in my post such that it could not be printed.
Please at least tell me why it wasn't published, so that I can know for next time (because I do like your column) what kind of thing to leave out, so my posts aren't banned.
I really have no idea what I said that was so wrong it couldn't be printed.
Best Regards.

DD replies: I never saw it. Could you kindly send it again. I publish everything unless it breaks the law.

Posted by: cath stuart on June 10, 2007 6:30 PM

Hi Mark
I agree that rapid depopulation would be a bad thing in the short term however a long decline would be advantageous. Especially as problems like peak oil start to take effect the more resources we have to go round then, the better we all shall be. Either way if there was a short term economic problem like a recession I believe it would be worth it so that we have a sustainable society in the long run.
I dont think you can attribute Japan's economic problems to population decline. Japan had so many things going wrong with it in the 90s and has a culture where change is extermely difficult its no wonder it had problems. You only have to look at the problems that were brought on by their banks who over lent and created the bubble that really destabilised their economy.
Looking at the world today you could say we are being melodramatic but if you take a long term view I dont think it is. It shall be interesting to see what the world is like in 10-20 years time considering all the challenges we are facing at the moment. We live in interesting times!
Regards,

Posted by: toomany on June 10, 2007 7:04 PM

Dear Toomany,

I wasn't attributing Japan's economic reversals to depopulation. In fact I think you gave a reasonably fair summary of the reasons.

I was pointing to the effects of deflation. For example, the decline in real value of assets, to name but one.

Sounds like a first home buyer's dream except that it isn't. Because everything else declines following the same general trend.

I visited Japan in 1995 (my last visit) and one of my vivid memories was of Japanese salary men waiting in a café in Shinjuku station when I left for the office in the morning and still being in the same café when I returned to my hotel in the evening after work. It was explained to me by my Japanese colleagues that these men were retrenched by their previous employers and kept up the appearance of still going to the office to maintain face with their neighbours.

Having been retrenched myself as a sole income provider for a family, I can now understand the pain they were going through. Of course, the Asian concept of face is not something I feel but I can kind of figure out where they are coming from.

If you are old enough to have lived through the last recession as a working person supporting a mortgage and/or a family, I don't think you would be so blasé about the effects of a recession. Even one we had to have!

Regards...

Posted by: Mark Harrison on June 10, 2007 10:56 PM

where do you live, di? somewhere too ritzy for pensioners, no doubt.

I agree that the baby bonus is a stupid handout - but the beer and smokes and ignorance cliche seems a bit unnecessary - I take it from your snide assessment of sole parent pensioners that you think that its all right to pay thousands of dollars to wealthy couples who know the value of money because they have so much more of it?

Posted by: lethe on June 11, 2007 1:12 AM

Well, it's good to know my post wasn't banned - I can't re-write it all word for word though (and now I'm on the spot to be 'thoughtful' and 'considered'!).
Basically, I wrote about
a) the severe eighties recession (with its attendant 'downsizing', unemployment and retrenchment - basically getting rid of workers with good wages and conditions, and people suddenly couldn't expect to keep their job till retirement, young people couldn't start one) and the political climate at the time (including threat of nuclear war and even 'Star Wars') and the effect that had on Generation-Xers' (and others') birthrates and
b) the horrible world of the last ten years (i.e War on Terror, Iraq War, punitive and just plain nasty Federal government and its bigger brother ally) that many people either didn't want to bring a child into, felt it was too dangerous to bring a child into, or even felt guilty about having brought a child into, and didn't want to bring any more into just yet.
I discussed the prospect of having had to explain the Iraq War, Woomera, Tampa, SIEV-X, seven years on Nauru, Hicks and Habib's crying families (just to name a few) and the chilling effect that might have had on procreation recently, let alone costs of living not least skyrocketing house prices, whether buying or renting. And of course not forgetting that we (who have been listening) have been worried about environmental destruction, pollution and global warming since the 70's and 80's, and the prospect that children born then might have a very bleak future.
Sorry, it was a pretty long post, there's no way I'm able to recreate it now. I was going off and firing on all four cylinders of rhetoric, politics, passion and the chance to express things that have been long pent up. Gosh it was good!
But my conclusion was that perhaps a few people are beginning to see a glimmer of hope in the prospect of the departures of the Howard and Bush Administrations, that maybe some sense and compassion will return to the earth, we will attempt to deal with global warming, step back from war and oppression, work for more social justice and equity, and a better place to raise our children.
Now I sound like I'm trying to be lame and inspiring, so I'll stop.
If anyone's listening, paid maternity leave would be better for our society and more equitable than middle-class welfare and throwing cash bonuses at whoever can reproduce the fastest. Just because they can.
Thanks David.

Posted by: Cath Stuart on June 11, 2007 5:34 AM

How can we ever achieve greenhouse gas targets with a rising population? We will be forever chasing our tail. I won't be getting in the champagne to celebrate. We'll have a wake instead!

Posted by: Corel on June 11, 2007 5:31 PM

We need to do what all the other big nations have done, slaves...
or in the current Government choice, importing immigrants at sub par pay, "and work choice"

Posted by: Baghern on June 11, 2007 10:18 PM

I haven't completed a census form in 30 years.
I have at least 5 kids who have never been "counted".
Stiff.

DD replies: Why do you think not filling in a census form is something to boast about?